How does XP benchmark vs 98 and ME?

https://youtu.be/49fn4DEnbFU

Phil, I'd really enjoy a Pentium MMX vs Pentium II vs Slot 1 Pentium III benchmark video; maybe with a PCI Voodoo 3 or Voodoo 2 😀

By the way, I spent a good two hours going through your huge Voodoo 2 CPU scaling report; incredibly well done.

I've done all of that pretty much. Take a look at my past videos. The results can be compared as the benchmarks and settings are identical.

I'd love to see a video for a C3 Ezra Dos time machine. That or the all singing all dancing 98/xp Swiss army knife machine.

Pentium II 350 - Intel's first 100 MHz FSB CPU: https://youtu.be/XlqCAythWb8

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Pentium II 350 - Intel's first 100 MHz FSB CPU: https://youtu.be/XlqCAythWb8

Right the day after I received mine in the mail too. Awesome.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Pentium II 350 - Intel's first 100 MHz FSB CPU: https://youtu.be/XlqCAythWb8

Nice video, i have 4 Pentium II 350s somwhere, two of them having the same S-Spec, so it could be used in a dual CPU system

A Chinese Android Smartphone, the Le Eco Max 2 with Snapdragon 820 and Adreno 530. What is retro gaming like on a phone? Checking out SNES, Genesis, ScummVM, Nintendo 64, PSP, Playstation and GTA San Andreas! And I talk about the phone and what I think.

https://youtu.be/3mHOb5k3v6A

Very impressed. Never had an Android device before, had a Nokia Lumia with Windows, but Android is awesome for emulation, that's for sure.

We just need a port of FSMP for Android!

Surprised at the low cost on that phone. Seems like a great phone to pick up if your phone breaks mid-contract.

I'm surprised you're still on the Windows phone platform, Phil. 😀 Super awesome, but lack of apps makes it so challenging to use as anything other than a phone! I bought my son a Lumia 520 a few years ago (about a hundred bucks including a 64GB sd card). He used it as a media/gaming device for a couple of years, then we activated the phone features and he used it as a phone for about a year, before we upgraded him away from the platform. Great little device. Still sitting in a drawer somewhere. 🤣.

In many aspects I'm a very simple guy and don't like complexity 😀 What I found with Android is that it does give you complexity, but not too much, it's all fairly straight forward to use and the way you think something works, that's pretty much how it does. I can't say the same for other experiences, like Linux or Apple, with those I just give up and admit that you can't teach an old dog new tricks 😁

A lot has to with me being very busy, and inpatient, so I like to streamline and simplify as much as I can. I used to spend hours and hours figuring crap out, I don't have that time these days.

Now back to the phone, the fact that you can just install some random OS on your phone really impressed me though. I have to watch out though that I don't waste too much time trying out different ROMs. Will have to look into Android TV boxes and what they are like. But Windows is strong in that area, a lot of Atom based devices that are super easy to use thanks to Windows 10.

With the ROMs, performance went actually up quite nicely with Nougat, no idea how, but I'll take it thank you very much.

GeForce 2 MX 400 - The GeForce 256 that everyone can afford: https://youtu.be/RtLTYSWNU0w

Nice videos, Phil!

Is there a DDR version of the GeForce 2 MX? I wonder if there's any performance differences between both the 256 and 2 MX with DDR memory?

switchblade wrote:

Nice videos, Phil!

Is there a DDR version of the GeForce 2 MX? I wonder if there's any performance differences between both the 256 and 2 MX with DDR memory?

I vaguely remember buying a DDR MX 400 as an upgrade to my Voodoo 3 in around 2000, which later got moved to my sister's first PC when I upgraded to a Radeon 8500.

Well, the next step up are the GeForce4 MX cards. They are basically tuned up GeForce2 cards. I will get to those at some point in the future, but it might be a while 😀

appiah4 wrote:

switchblade wrote:

Nice videos, Phil!

Is there a DDR version of the GeForce 2 MX? I wonder if there's any performance differences between both the 256 and 2 MX with DDR memory?

I vaguely remember buying a DDR MX 400 as an upgrade to my Voodoo 3 in around 2000, which later got moved to my sister's first PC when I upgraded to a Radeon 8500.

Geforce 2 MX 400 DDR is no better than the SDR version since the DDR versions are 64 bit which has practically the same bandwitdh as the 128 bit SDR version, so the Geforce 256 DDR will still outperform it with it's 128 bit DDR

To sum up the whole Geforce 2 MX Line:

MX 200 - 175/166 mhz core/mem, 64 bit SDR
MX - 175/166 mhz core/mem, 128 bit SDR
MX 400 - 200/166 (333 DDR) mhz core/mem, 128 bit SDR or 64 bit DDR

Yes, I finally got around to doing this one 😊

Celeron 300A - Overclocker's Wet Dream: https://youtu.be/z5IYxpGc9NU

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Well, the next step up are the GeForce4 MX cards. They are basically tuned up GeForce2 cards. I will get to those at some point in the future, but it might be a while 😀

About the Geforce 4 MX, if you are comparing them against other cards, i'd suggest compare against the Geforce 256 DDR, Geforce 2 MX/400, Geforce 2 GTS and Ultra, Geforce 3 line (vanilla, ti 200, ti 500), Geforce 4 Ti 4200, ATI's Radeon 7500, Radeon 8500/8500 LE and the Radeon 9000/9000 Pro (ATI's competition to the Geforce 4 MX), the Kyro II would be an interesting contender as well despite the Kyro lacking T&L

In many old reviews, you can see the Geforce 4 MX 440 and 460 outperforming the Geforce 3 cards in some OpenGL/DirectX 6/7 titles due to it's higher clocks and the way T&L worked on the Geforce 4 MX compared to the Geforce 3 (this is also true for the Geforce 2 Ulra vs Geforce 3 case which the GF3 loses to GF2 Ultra in some cases), the Geforce Ti 4200 is also an interesting card in the comparasion since you can see how the Geforce 4 MX cards compares against the higher end Ti seres, specifically the Ti 4200 which is the bottom line of the Ti and also what differentiates the MX line against the Ti line, another useful cards for the comparasion are the high end Geforce 2 cards like the GTS, Pro and Ultra, many old GF4 MX reviews didn't include the older higher end Geforce 2 cards...

I own several Geforce 4 MX cards: an MX 460, multiple MX440s, an MX440 SE and an MX4000, i can say a fast MX440 or an MX460 could outperform my Geforce 6200 AGP 64 bit DDR2 and all of my FX 5500s in DX7 titles, the Geforce FX 5200 was a failure at some point due to it's not really good architerture and getting outperformed by the MX 440 and the Radeon 9000 in older games

There an extract from the Wikipedia about the Geforce 4 MX line

Wikipedia wrote:

Many criticized the GeForce 4 MX name as a misleading marketing ploy since it was less advanced than the preceding GeForce 3. In […]
Show full quote

Many criticized the GeForce 4 MX name as a misleading marketing ploy since it was less advanced than the preceding GeForce 3. In the features comparison chart between the Ti and MX lines, it showed that the only "feature" that was missing on the MX was the nfiniteFX II engine—the DirectX 8 programmable vertex and pixel shaders. However, the GeForce4 MX was not a GeForce4 Ti with the shader hardware removed, as the MX's performance in games that did not use shaders was considerably behind the GeForce 4 Ti and GeForce 3.

Though its lineage was of the past-generation GeForce 2, the GeForce4 MX did incorporate bandwidth and fill rate-saving techniques, dual-monitor support, and a multi-sampling anti-aliasing unit from the Ti series; the improved 128-bit DDR memory controller was crucial to solving the bandwidth limitations that plagued the GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 lines. It also owed some of its design heritage to Nvidia's high-end CAD products, and in performance-critical non-game applications it was remarkably effective. The most notable example is AutoCAD, in which the GeForce4 MX returned results within a single-digit percentage of GeForce4 Ti cards several times the price.

Despite harsh criticism by gaming enthusiasts, the GeForce4 MX was a market success. Priced about 30% above the GeForce 2 MX, it provided better performance, the ability to play a number of popular games that the GeForce 2 could not run well—above all else—to the average non-specialist it sounded as if it were a "real" GeForce4—i.e., a GeForce4 Ti. GeForce 4 MX was particularly successful in the PC OEM market, and rapidly replaced the GeForce 2 MX as the best-selling GPU.

In motion-video applications, the GeForce4 MX offered new functionality. It (and not the GeForce4 Ti) was the first GeForce member to feature the Nvidia VPE (video processing engine). It was also the first GeForce to offer hardware-iDCT and VLC (variable length code) decoding, making VPE a major upgrade from Nvidia’s previous HDVP. In the application of MPEG-2 playback, VPE could finally compete head-to-head with ATI's video engine.

To sum up, as it was said, the Geforce 4 MX is a very improved Geforce 2 MX made faster, better and more efficient with a huge sucess in OEM and budget builds, and now as a nice retrogaming card for DX7/OpenGL (games like Quake 3) and older titles, it could be considered an alrernative to the higher end Geforce 2 cards at some point.

I once had a GeForce 4 MX 440 and it lasted me quite awhile when it came to OpenGL and DirectX 7 titles at 1024x768. I think it was Call of Duty 2, where I started running into issues with my MX 440. The card just didn't have any support for DirectX 9 at the time, but the DX7 renderer worked perfectly fine on my MX 440. I was honestly quite surprised to see the graphical and performance difference between DX7 and DX9 in Call of Duty 2. I remember DX9 in that game being such a performance hog in certain levels where the FPS would drop to 15 or 10 in certain levels. In comparison, I didn't see any major performance drops in DX7 in that game.

Same thing happened to me with my Radeon X700 LE (very first PCI-E GPU I had at the time) and the first Bioshock. I believe the X700 didn't have support for SM 3.0, which was required for Bioshock in order to run that game. There was some fan-made hack or patch that allowed you to run the game using SM 2.0, but it looked very buggy and glitchy. It was able to run Half-Life 2 at the time in 1280x1024, but the FPS was very bad if I recall correctly.

I guess the thing about 256 vs MX400 is that the 256 is a decided top performer among its contemporaries whereas the MX400 is the underdog of the generation more or less, and from a collector point of view, as well as your build's value (if such a thing exists..) it is cooler to have the 256 in there - I know I'd rather put the 256 into a PC built around '99 hardware (ok, I lied, I'd put the Vooodoo 3 in there but I digress) than an MX400, but I can't deny that it's a nearly direct 1 to 1 replacement in most cases..